Editorial: Lawmakers need to reevaluate state fire fee

IN 2011, scrambling for ways to pull itself out of a deep budget crisis, state lawmakers decided to change property owners for the CalFire firefighting force.

Bills for that charge were mailed out to 15,000 Marin homeowners, those whose homes fall within the state-drawn "State Responsibility Area," where properties border open spaces where fires are most likely to draw on the men and equipment of the state's firefighting force.

Legislators approved the fee, technically to pay for fire prevention. But in a budgetary shell game, revenue from the fee allowed CalFire to redirect money it had budgeted for public education to backfill $50 million cut from its firefighting budget.

Lawmakers also chose a fee, because a tax would have required a two-thirds majority to pass.

That wasn't going to happen.

The bottom line is that taxpayers are paying more, whether it's a fee or a tax, for an essential public service that deserves to be a general fund budget priority, especially given California's recent record of destructive wildland fires.

Not surprisingly, a bill introduced this year to overturn the fee never reached the Assembly floor.

State officials have defended the fee as necessary to cover CalFire's rising costs, increased by growth in the number of homes constructed within its firefighting jurisdiction.

But in Marin, those homes get primary firefighting protection from their local fire departments, which property owners already support with special taxes.

In fact, in Marin, local firefighting forces likely are the first to respond to fires on state lands, essentially putting out fires for Sacramento rather than waiting for state fire crews to arrive. So, why should Marin residents be charged?

The state fee created another layer of charges for fire protection.

The state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, which oversees CalFire, decided to lower the fee charged to properties that get primary coverage from local municipal fire departments to $115.

That still doesn't make it right.

Local fire officials have roundly criticized the state fee. They are worried that their local taxpayers will be less supportive of proposals to renew or increase local fire because of the duplicative fee.

Certainly, any sum is worth it when a wildland fire is headed for your neighborhood and you are waiting and hoping for the arrival of the state's crews and aerial firefighting force.

But in Marin, the reality is that most fires are doused by local firefighting corps, without the state's help.

Marin taxpayers probably already pay their fair share in their state property taxes.

Lawmakers don't want to open a political Pandora's Box, but they should, and take a harder look at the need for the fee, its real intent and the fairness of the charges.